Thejus Valsan You are right up to a point, the whole test is flawed. First of all a color profile must be done on the two cameras to make sure the curves and the colors are standardized, only afterwards is possible to compare. He is professional photographer he should know better.

Thejus Valsan Absolutely Correct! And the Hasselblad RAW files have been in Focus software first, and that pulls out all the quality from Hasselblad files.. The Nikon RAW files should have been tethered ore putted in too Capture One first!! Not the lesser good RAW converter in Adobe! And a funny part in all this..! Karl don’t do gear review’s ... But when Nikon comes with a very good camera, that is coming a good step near/closer too MF.. It’s important to make a video how the MF is better.. But is it worth the price difference!? You can by the D850 and the best Nikon lens, for the same price as one Hasselblad lens😁 And you have tilt screen, and superior autofocus on the D850👍 Yes! MF has “better” image quality than FF and APS-C cameras.. But is it sooo much better this day’s!? that’s up to the individual’s I’m using it my self, and I need it for some of my own work.. This video is all about MONEY And marked! PS! by the Fujifilm GFX100 if you don’t need leefshuter lenses👍😁 And save a LOT off mony! And get an insanely good autofocus, IBIS a flip screen and a lot more!👍

If you look at the X-system lenses, you'll notice none of them have names like Planar, Distagon or Sonnar, nor do they show the T* coating mark. I don't believe Zeiss makes the Hasselblad lenses anymore; I've heard it's Hasselblad's now competitor, Fuji.

Can you use leaf shutters on a DSLR?

BTW, color can be subjective and the Hasselblad has superior color, but Tonal Range is not. The superior tonal range is reason enough to step up to MF.

don't get fooled, when two sensors have the same dynamic range the differences you see is the effect of the profile and the build in tone curve. adobe does not try to build the camera profiles to give a similar look but rather to match the manufacturer default rendering, so it is no surprise that they appear different. I´m very sure mr. Taylor knows this.

Querelle , your absolutely correct. Not only does this make two not match but it makes every sensor look “generic” by reducing every sensor to the Adobe look.

worth to mention that adobe changed the default color rendering with the newer version of acr & lr in a very positiv way so this comparison is outdated anyway.

You might want to rethink that statement about the 50MP sensor. As far as I know there is no real 16bit sensor in that format. So effectively you get the same 14bit color that you would find in a Sony A7RII or III.

Was thinking the exact same thing. This video is def skewed further toward the Hasselblad. Not saying it isn't better. We all know it is but if you're skilled photographer you know the errors in the video.

Those were strobes used? Studio flashes, in fact the best ones on the market 'Broncolor Scoro's'. It seems also people are making a lot of focus on the lenses, it seems there is only one particular lens in the nikon range that would have been up to the job? That's a shame.. I can pick up any of the Hasselblad lenses and there wouldn't be a problem, even some that are over 10 years old?

Thanks for the clarification on the lighting, Karl Taylor. With regard to the lenses for beauty, there is also the 135mm in the Nikon line as well as the 70-200mm f 2.8 E(I have this awesome lens, which has medium formatish tonality)-the successor to the VRII. The 80-200mm also works well. And you may not know this as I think you use Canon but Nikon is loaded with lens for beauty-but Canon gained something of a big share in with its 70-200mm 2.8 in the beauty field, with medium format also picking up a good share. Nikon's VRii didn't deliver in the beauty range in the 70-200mm 2.8f VRII. But now the latest lens in the 70-200mm is a competitor. I would interested to see the difference in Nikon compared to Hasselblad in print display sized images for stores, in fashion and beauty, with the following lenses used for Nikon--70-200mm 2.8 (the latest one not the VRII), the 80-200mm 2.8f, 135mm DC 2.0 (This lens will rock your eyeballs), and also the after-be-mentioned 200mm (costs a fortune)and there's a legion of lens that are older that will also work. I would also like to see the images appear in Phocus for the Hasselblad and Nikon View NX for the Nikon. Thanks for your informative reply. Oh and this is my lens, my new favourite, which gives a good comparison to the lens it has succeeded: petapixel.com/2016/11/22/nikon-70-200mm-f2-8e-review-worth-money-youre-pro/

Kai Wiedersum Not always!

let's be serious here the D850 is no VW Polo. and kudos to them for testing it against the best full frame camera ever made, even on 2022 mind you.

Professional photographers do NEED medium format cameras, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about comparing a professional work tool to a fucking luxury car

Hi Nelson, Do you see much difference between H5D 50c and full frame?

@@jvusa Hi there Yes huge amount - it is worth the extra investment for many reasons. 1. It is as you say full frame (ish) it s about .06 off full frame so not even 1x - but you actually get the best part of all the lenses anyway - and you can go a bit further into the aperture fo r the sweet spots without too much in the way of aberrations - all lenses suffer from this so it is a nice added bonus. 2 Pixel count - the 100 is almost twice the resolution - it does not quite work out at double as it is a bigger sensor than the 50c but it is hugely noticeable - one of the things I do is make composites at around F16 from around 9 individual frames with 3 exposures on each - occasionally up to 5 bu then the file sizes are around 4gb of data and then when stitched can be up to 500mb - so make sure you have the capacity to deal with that on the back end - LR stitches it all nicely. 3. there are many added features in the 100 not on the 50c - the touch screen is not only brighter and more detailed and a lot easier to see than the 50c but it is easier to navigate also. 4. increase in shutter capability up to 2000 but not on all lenses - are the orange dot lenses worth the money - maybe, I have one which is the 100mm it is a peach of a lens and probably the most accomplished lns on the H system - and don't forget you can use a small extension tube, even for portraits to get in nice and close with a very thrown out background - make sure if you go down this route to have a couple of new batteries the 1900AH as it is a bit more heavy on juice!!! - Also ensure you have beefier cards, Go for it - you will not regret whatever discipline of photography you are doing

@@nelsonclub7722 Thanks a lot Nelson, Appreciate for your detail explanation, also 50c has only 1 center focus and alway have to use focus and recompose using true focus, does it give accuracy similar to eye auto focus ?

@@jvusa My pleasure my friend the AF is hopeless - always has been and sadly it is no better on the X series. MF. THe best AF is the Fuji FGX - it is cheaper than the both the 50c and the 100 respectively but the in my opinion the quality of the image on HAsselblad just knocks it out of the park, better in my opinion than Phase One - and a lot easier to work with than both. It's all about the in camera processing. Fujifilm gives the photographer far too many preset options none of which is any good really, the film simulations can easily be achieved in post, and they are not in my opinion anything like the films they are meant to emulate anyway In the end you will just turn them all off and still have too many buttons in places where if you touch them they switch on either a quick menu, and you haven't even noticed, or a preset which you can't quickly enough turn off. however for an 'all round' camera of unimaginable performance it beats the Hass. Its a camera for everyone. whereas the Hasselblad is a camera for the photographer who is far less concerned with trying to have a camera which can do lots of things reasonably well, for instance the AF is good and better than a Hass, but still not a patch on Sony, Canon, Nikon, Lumix etc, versus a camera which does just one thing well which is what the Hasselblad does. Unimaginable depth of colour, detail and pure loveliness. Fuji = 1 shoe fits everyone. Hasselblad = handmade shoe. Hass 50c is a great camera and be mindful that its only true limitation is pixel count and crop factor and a poorer old school menu function. Also I should say that when I spoke to Hasselblad in April - I am friendly with the UK and Swedish team, they assured me that the colour profile of the entire range from X1DI, II, 907x (CFV50II) and the H6D both in 50 and 100 and of course 400 (which is the same back as 100) all colour match across the range. The sensor in them all is the Sony - the 50c is identical to that of the X1DII - and of course the Fuji. It is worth noting also that Phase One helped Hasselblad bring their digital backs into being, and some of the Phase One staff now work at Hass, or at least did in the early days. There will always be a compromise somewhere. I don't use Autofocus - never have - so for me the Hass 100 is really where it is at - but when 9not if) Hass bring out a 100 907x for the X series I will then switch and use things like Arcbody - which will be the same as Phase One XT - which currently costs over 100K all in!!!!

@@nelsonclub7722 WOW. Yes based on watching few reviews I felt the same, Thanks a lot my friend. Appreciate again for the detail explanation.